Auth0 alternatives in 2026 for B2B apps

Auth0 played a significant role in standardizing how many SaaS teams implemented identity. It helped popularize OAuth and SAML and made it practical for teams to rely on a managed service rather than building authentication from scratch.

Auth0 continues to offer broad protocol support and a flexible platform for implementing authentication.

However, B2B needs in 2026 are no longer defined by flexibility or breadth alone.

For one, identity has become a control layer that determines how users and non-user actors: APIs, agents, MCP servers, background jobs, and external systems—access an application, with permissions enforced through scopes, roles, and tenant boundaries. Teams evaluating Auth0 alternatives are usually not reacting to missing authentication features. They are responding to how identity behaves when it becomes embedded in core product architecture.

This article examines common Auth0 alternatives and outlines the tradeoffs teams encounter as identity requirements expand.

Why teams start looking beyond Auth0

Teams rarely move away from Auth0 because it stops working. More often, they reach a point where the operational cost of identity begins to outpace the value it provides.

Identity stretches beyond its original model

Auth0 supports organizations, roles, and enterprise SSO, but these features are layered on top of a model where users remain the primary identity object. As B2B usage grows, teams commonly compensate by mapping users to organizations in application tables, encoding org-specific rules in code, and manually carrying organizational context through tokens, sessions, and logs.

At that point, identity still functions, but it is no longer fully contained within the identity platform. Core semantics are split between configuration, custom hooks, and application logic, making identity harder to reason about as a single system.

Access decisions become distributed

As products mature, access control tends to spread across multiple layers. Decisions are shaped by dashboard configuration, Actions, token claims, application-level checks, and sometimes external authorization services.

Each layer solves a real requirement, but together they fragment the identity model. Understanding why access was granted or denied increasingly requires tracing through several systems. Identity stops behaving like stable infrastructure and starts behaving like a set of moving parts that need ongoing attention.

New actors change the shape of identity

Modern B2B platforms rarely serve only human users. Over time, products introduce agents acting on behalf of users, background jobs with side effects, API clients, CLI tools, and inbound systems such as MCP servers.

Auth0 can support these flows, but they are typically modeled indirectly as applications, scopes, or long-lived tokens. As non-user traffic grows, those abstractions blur the line between human intent and automated execution. Policy enforcement shifts deeper into application code, tokens become broader than intended, and observability becomes too shallow to explain real-world behavior.

At this stage, identity is no longer just about login. It governs how work happens across the system, often without being designed as a runtime control layer.

That is usually when teams begin looking beyond Auth0.

Recommended reading: Add enterprise SSO on top of your Auth0 setup

Common Auth0 alternatives teams consider in 2026

Note: To make pricing comparable across vendors, all estimates below use the same representative scenario:

A B2B AI app in 2026 with 200 customer organizations, ~8,000 monthly active users, and 50 customers requiring enterprise SSO (and SCIM where supported).

Each vendor section applies this scenario to the vendor’s published pricing (and published volume slabs where provided). Numbers are approximate and meant to show pricing behavior, not exact invoices or negotiated contracts. The assumptions are made to give a fair idea about auth0 alternatives to both enterprises and high-growth startups in scaleup phase who are evaluating authentication stack.

Clerk

Clerk originated in the consumer and frontend-centric SaaS ecosystem, with a strong emphasis on developer experience and UI components. Its adoption remains strongest in consumer apps and developer tools where authentication is primarily user-driven.

Clerk has added B2B features over time, including Organizations, basic multi-tenancy, enterprise SSO (SAML and OIDC), and role-based access control. These additions make it usable for simpler B2B products, particularly where enterprise requirements are limited.

Where friction typically appears

B2B functionality is layered on top of a user-centric foundation. Enterprise features are add-ons rather than defaults, SCIM provisioning is not supported, and fine-grained roles require the Enhanced Organizations add-on. Authorization beyond basic RBAC and non-user actors such as services, background jobs, or agents typically live in application code.

Pricing (based on the shared scenario)

Clerk SSO uses published volume slabs and should be priced cumulatively:

• Base Pro plan: $25/month
• MAUs: 8,000 × $0.02 = $160/month
• Enhanced Organizations add-on: $100/month
• SSO connections (50 orgs):
  • 1 included: $0
  • 2–15 (14) × $75 = $1,050
  • 16–50 (35) × $60 = $2,100
  • SSO total = $3,150/month

Estimated monthly total: ~$3,435/month

This does not include SCIM, which would require additional tooling outside Clerk.

Descope

Descope approaches authentication as configurable visual workflows. Teams define login, signup, and MFA behavior through no-code or low-code tools rather than writing authentication logic directly.

Descope supports B2B use cases with organizations, enterprise SSO, SCIM provisioning, and directory sync.

Where friction typically appears

The primary abstraction is workflow configuration rather than identity architecture. Authorization logic, complex org hierarchies, and non-user actors generally live in application code. Users can exist independently of organizations, so teams building strictly org-first products often add additional enforcement themselves.

Pricing (based on the shared scenario)

With 50 SSO connections and ~8,000 MAUs, typical public plan caps are exceeded.

Estimated monthly total: ~$3,000–$4,000+ (custom pricing)

Exact pricing depends on negotiated MAU and SSO limits.

WorkOS

WorkOS is commonly adopted to add enterprise authentication capabilities such as SAML-based SSO, SCIM provisioning, and audit logs. It is frequently used when enterprise readiness becomes a requirement.

WorkOS participates in authentication architectures but is typically paired with another system for user login, sessions, and authorization.

Where friction typically appears

Identity logic is split across systems. Enterprise connections live in WorkOS, while core authentication and authorization live elsewhere. As products expand into APIs, services, agents, and workflows, additional policy and coordination logic is often required outside the identity layer.

Pricing (based on the shared scenario)

WorkOS volume discounts should be applied cumulatively. For 50 SSO + 50 SCIM connections:

• SSO (50 connections)
  • 1–15: 15 × $125 = $1,875
  • 16–30: 15 × $100 = $1,500
  • 31–50: 20 × $80 = $1,600
  • SSO total = $4,975/month
• SCIM (50 connections)
  • Same slab math
  • SCIM total = $4,975/month
• Audit logs: 200 orgs × $5 = $1,000/month

Estimated monthly total: ~$10,950/month

This does not include the cost of the primary authentication system.

Frontegg

Frontegg bundles authentication, tenant management, roles, entitlements, and an admin UI into a single B2B SaaS-focused product. It’s typically chosen when teams want a bundled, UI-forward identity layer quickly.

Where friction typically appears

The platform is opinionated about SaaS identity patterns. Identity logic is closely coupled to the provided admin UI. Teams building API-first products, custom authorization models, or execution-heavy systems often encounter constraints or end up duplicating policy logic elsewhere.

Pricing (based on the shared scenario)

Using the pricing detail you provided (SSO pricing with free allowance):

• Enterprise SSO: first 5 free, then 45 × $125 = $5,625/month
• Base subscription and org limits apply on top of this (varies by plan)

Estimated monthly total: ~$5,625/month + base plan

FusionAuth

FusionAuth emphasizes flexibility and ownership. It supports standard protocols and offers hosted and self-managed deployment options.

FusionAuth Tenants act as namespaces for isolating users and configuration, not as native customer organizations within a single application.

Where friction typically appears

B2B organizational modeling, enterprise workflows, authorization systems, and admin experiences must be designed and maintained by the team. Identity becomes part of the platform engineering surface rather than a managed layer.

Pricing (based on the shared scenario)

• Starter plan: $500/month
• Enterprise features and support: custom pricing
• Infrastructure, operations, and maintenance costs not included

Estimated monthly total: $500+ plus internal engineering cost

Scalekit

Scalekit is designed as an org-first identity layer for B2B products where identity needs to remain coherent as the product surface expands beyond user login.

Instead of treating identity as configuration attached to each application or protocol, Scalekit treats identity as shared infrastructure that sits in front of the product and governs access consistently across users, enterprise access, APIs, services, and execution paths.

This distinction becomes material once identity stops being “how users log in” and starts acting as a control layer for how work happens inside the product.

Where it differs structurally

• Organizations are the root object
  Users, services, agents, MCP clients, and permissions are always resolved in the context of an organization. One user can belong to multiple orgs without identity duplication, and org context is never inferred indirectly through claims or metadata.

• Identity and authorization are resolved upstream
  Scalekit resolves who the actor is, which organization they belong to, and what roles, scopes, and policies apply as part of authentication and token issuance. Application services receive requests with identity context already established, reducing duplicated authorization logic across APIs, services, and background workers.

• Enterprise auth is native, not compositional
  SSO, SCIM provisioning, domain discovery, org-level login enforcement, and admin-driven setup are part of the same system. There is no need to stitch together separate products or maintain per-customer SSO logic in application code.

• Execution is treated as a first-class access path
  Non-human actors—APIs, background jobs, MCP servers, and AI agents—are modeled explicitly rather than being shoehorned into user or application abstractions. Delegated “on-behalf-of” access, inbound agent authentication, and machine-to-machine flows use the same org and policy model as human access.

• Extensibility without fragmentation
  Auth-flow interceptors allow synchronous policy enforcement during authentication and token issuance. Business rules live close to identity rather than being scattered across services. Auth logs are tenant-aware by default, supporting debugging, auditing, and compliance without losing organizational context.

This architecture is designed to absorb new identity surfaces over time without forcing teams to rework their model as products expand into automation, workflows, and AI-driven execution.

Pricing (based on the shared scenario)

Assumes 200 customer organizations, ~8,000 MAUs, and 50 organizations requiring enterprise SSO and SCIM:

Scalekit pricing is aligned to how B2B products actually scale: by onboarding more organizations and expanding enterprise access, not by penalizing user growth or forcing plan jumps as enterprise adoption increases.

Keycloak

Keycloak is an open-source identity and access management system that supports OAuth, OIDC, and SAML. It’s commonly adopted by teams that want maximum control and are comfortable operating identity infrastructure themselves.

Where complexity accumulates

Keycloak provides low-level building blocks rather than B2B-native abstractions. Organizations, memberships, roles, enterprise onboarding flows, and customer-facing admin UX are typically implemented by the product team. SSO can be supported, but per-customer configuration and lifecycle management often becomes operational work. SCIM and directory-driven lifecycle workflows usually require additional components or custom implementation. Upgrades, security posture, and operational reliability stay on your team.

Pricing (based on the shared scenario)

• Open source license: $0
• Managed hosting or commercial support: varies by provider
• Operational cost: on-call, upgrades, security reviews, and scaling

Estimated monthly total: $0 licensing + meaningful engineering/ops cost

Stytch (B2B)

Stytch offers a B2B authentication product built around Organizations and Members, with support for SSO, SCIM, directory sync, and role-based access control.

Stytch was acquired by Twilio in 2025. Some teams factor that into vendor-risk discussions, especially around long-term product direction and prioritization.

Where friction typically appears

Authorization beyond standard RBAC remains application-owned. Policy enforcement across APIs, services, and execution paths is not centralized. Non-human actors such as machine-to-machine integrations, background jobs, MCP servers, and AI agents are not modeled as distinct identity types and are commonly handled via reused Member identities or custom logic.

Pricing (based on the shared scenario)

Assumes 8,000 MAUs and 50 orgs needing both SSO and SCIM, with 5 connections included:

• MAUs: 8,000 × $0.20 = $1,600/month
• Enterprise connections: (50 − 5) × $125 = $5,625/month

Estimated monthly total: ~$7,225/month

Understanding Auth0 pricing

Pricing is not just a procurement concern. It shapes how teams use identity. Auth0's pricing model is driven by three main factors:

Monthly active users (MAU): This is the primary pricing dimension.

Free tier: Up to 25,000 MAU

• Basic authentication
• Passwordless and social connections
• Up to 5 organizations
• Community support

Essentials: $150/month

• Up to 500 MAU included
• Unlimited organizations
• SSO for 3 customer directories
• Higher API limits
• Standard support

Professional: $800/month

• Up to 500 MAU included
• SSO for 5 customer directories
• Multi-factor authentication options
• Enhanced attack protection
• Custom database connections

Enterprise: Custom pricing

• Unlimited SSO connections
• 99.99% SLA
• Advanced security features
• Private cloud deployment options

Feature gates and add-ons

Enterprise capabilities are locked behind plan tiers or sold as add-ons:

• M2M tokens: $35/month for 1,000 tokens (Professional and above)
• Enterprise Connections: $40/month for 5 additional connections (Professional)
• Advanced MFA: Requires Professional tier minimum
• Private deployment: Enterprise only

Environment and tenant limits

Each environment (dev, staging, production) requires a separate tenant. At scale, you're effectively paying 3x for the same user base across environments.

Where Auth0 pricing creates tension for B2B products

1. MAU growth outpaces revenue
if you're building a workspace product where one customer might have 500 users but generates $2,000/month in revenue, Auth0's pricing can consume 20-40% of gross margin.
The problem compounds with seat-based pricing models common in B2B SaaS.

2. Enterprise features are required earlier
SSO and directory sync aren't enterprise nice-to-haves anymore. They're table stakes the moment you go beyond selling to startup/SMBs.
But Auth0 treats them as premium features gated behind higher tiers or add-ons.

3. Machine actors multiply cost
That API service checking permissions? It counts as an MAU if it authenticates. Your nightly sync job? MAU. Your AI agent making authenticated requests? MAU.
The pricing model was built for humans logging into web apps, not modern B2B architectures with APIs, background jobs, and agent workflows.

4. Multi environment tax
Most teams run dev, staging, and production environments. Auth0 charges per tenant. At scale, infrastructure costs triple for the same logical user base.

Decision framework: choosing an Auth0 alternative

Questions to ask before choosing an identity platform

1. Is your product fundamentally multi-tenant?
If organizations are your primary trust boundary, identity needs to model them as first-class objects. Some platforms treat organizations as core primitives. Others require you to layer organizational structure on top of a user-centric model, which adds application logic and long-term maintenance.

2. Do you already have non-user actors, or will you soon?
Modern B2B products rarely stop at human users. APIs, background jobs, automation, agents, and MCP servers all require authenticated access. Many identity systems force these actors into workarounds like application credentials or service accounts rather than modeling them directly.

3. How broadly will enterprise SSO be adopted?
If enterprise SSO is needed by a meaningful portion of your customers, it should behave like a baseline capability, not a premium upgrade. The way SSO and provisioning are priced and integrated will shape how easily you can roll it out across your customer base.

4. Are you comfortable spreading identity logic across systems? 
Some platforms are intentionally scoped and expect you to combine multiple tools to cover login, enterprise access, authorization, and lifecycle management. Others aim to centralize identity decisions. The tradeoff is flexibility versus operational complexity.

5. Will user growth track revenue growth?
In many B2B products, customer value scales by organization, not by raw user count. Pricing models tied strictly to active users can become misaligned as teams and usage grow faster than revenue.

6. Do you need identity to work across multiple environments without multiplying cost?
Development, staging, testing, and production environments are table stakes for modern teams. Identity platforms vary widely in how they handle environments, isolation, and pricing as you add them.

Closing thought

There is no shortage of capable identity platforms. Most can authenticate users and support standard enterprise requirements.

The difference in 2026 is not who can handle login. It is who can keep identity coherent as products expand across organizations, APIs, automation, and agents.

That coherence determines whether identity remains infrastructure you rely on, or a system you continuously maintain.